4 ms·
I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. N
by billfruit 2y ago
I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. Normal cigarettes does that, and vaping does not. Thus vaping is a significant reduction in harm as compared to cigarettes.
While I don't deny that vaping companies and their corporate cheer leaders may have made the same argument, what exactly is the problem with this argument on merit?
- dogman144 2y agoWhere does popcorn lung etc fit on your spectrum of healthy consequence free vaping? Or a nicotine addiction in a middle schooler because of the ease of access and child marketing.
- billfruit 2y agoI didn't say vaping was consequence free, but only that it is a significant reduction in harm. Vaping seems to have much lesser consequences than smoking cigarettes due to the reasons mentioned above. Thus vaping is a reduction in harm compared to smoking cigarettes.
- dogman144 2y agoGoing to have to add in “addicting middle schoolers en masse” to your harm reduction logic chain. After decades of that going away (I literally remember the “smokers corner” in high school and how there were 5 peole there), you now have 1950’s style teen vaping/nicotine addictions again. You’ve failed to acknowledge or consider the consequences of this even once.